In Three

As embarrassing as this is, I haven't been able to fit in an interview since last week, so today, I'm just going to share some advice I gave to a friend who's hoping to get into BYU's film program.

Part of the application requires a three-minute film. This is by far the most daunting part of the process for someone trying to apply for the program, especially since this filmmaking venture comes before they've had a chance to make a lot of film-type friends to help them, and they've likely had very little experience up to this point anyway. Add onto that a dread fear of having an admittedly novice piece of work get judged by a group of very smart, very experienced professors who alone hold the key to entrance into the program, and suddenly a three-minute film seems more like the most important thing you've ever had to do.

The advice I gave him (edited down a bit below) will apply to anyone who is looking to make a short, three-minute narrative film. A lot of it is pretty basic, but it's often the very basic things that are most difficult to remember when you get busy with a project like that. So here it is:

1. Simplify - as it stands, there's no way you'd be able to cover that much material in 3 minutes.
2. Keep that core idea, and then figure out one simple question: What does your character want? Your three minutes will need to cover the following:
1. What happens to the character in the beginning that motivates the want?
2. What does the character do about it?
3. How does the character try to get what he wants? (There should be several escalating actions/reactions/situations)
4. Does the character get what he wants or not?
5. What are the consequences?
3. Be very specific and concrete in all of your choices--the setting, and exactly what happens in each scene, and why it's important.
4. Depending on those concrete decisions about what, exactly, will be in your film (person, place, thing, etc.), the tone of the story will be either humorous, dramatic, scary, suspenseful, or whatever. I suggest a mix of humor and suspense. It's easier to pull off comedy in 3 minutes than drama or anything else. 
5. Again, keep the concept simple. Try to boil the whole thing down to ONE THING. Person wants thing. Who is the person, and what is the thing? 3 minutes is shorter than you think it will be. Always. No matter what. That is the primary thing that hamstrings people when they set out to make a 3 minute film. Everyone, without fail, comes up with a concept that is too large, covers too much, and cannot possibly be told in 3 minutes. 

Maybe you're not working on a three-minute film, but most of the above advice actually applies to almost all of narrative screenwriting. So consider this the first of many screenwriting tips you'll find in this blog over time. 

###

I want to tell you that Friday has some cool things in store, to in part make up for the somewhat dry nature of this post. So I WILL tell you that. Because it is true.

Muscle Time!

NEWS: I am holding in my hand (or was, before I began typing [hunting and pecking is for the weak!]) a DVD of the fine cut of Weighted.

Producing said disc has eaten the lion's share of my day, so here I am, at 6pm, just now starting today's post. Eventually, I'll get to the point where I start these things early, and queue them up so that I don't have to rush to get something out every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Eventually. Probably right before I give up on this blog entirely.

This is the worst thing you've seen all day.

Kidding! I know how important this is to all of you. I have made a commitment.

I do have some advice today (SHOCK), and it's current, which means this is something that I have recently re-established as valuable and important. 

It is exercise. 

Does that sound like a cop-out? Well, it sort of is, but it's also the thing I feel most strongly about in this very moment. You see, I'm one of those people whose need for sleep seems to fluctuate pretty dramatically. I know people who can get by on six, or five, or three hours of sleep every night and somehow survive and stay productive. (I hate those people.) I need nine. 

I feel like it's not too hard to deduce that this puts me at a terrible disadvantage. While many healthy, normal people seem to get by just fine on six or seven hours of sleep, and wind up with a 17 or 18 hour day of work, play, and reasonable laziness, I have to make due with 15 (or less, if I'm stressed or overworked). 

BUT. I've learned, finally (again and again and...), that there is a consistant pattern to my level of physical activity (i.e. exercise), and the amount of sleep I need. Everyone agrees exercise is good. Duh. But here's the thing that always takes me by surprise (embarrassingly): I need much less sleep when I exercise regularly. I find myself feeling better and having more energy, and waking up naturally, no less, after seven hours or less.

Why am I telling you this? Why would you possibly care? What does this have to do with being a film-type? 

This is a time-making tool, this exercise business. And I've talked a lot about filling your time with good things, projects and the like. Getting experience, getting well-rounded, making connections and keeping them. Being a professional at whatever it is that drives your passion. How many times have you wished you needed less sleep? How many times have you caught yourself uttering that absurd cliche "if there were only more hours in the day..." 

OK, I'll leave the horse alone. It's starting to splatter, and blood stains miserably. 

I'm sure that everyone is physiologically different, but let me go ahead and recommend exercise as strongly as I can to every living human. You may not start at nine hours and end at seven, but you'll most certainly gain time, and, far more importantly, energy--that other thing there never seems to be enough of. 

Yes, I just spent an entire post telling you to go exercise. Sue me.*

*Please don't sue me. 

The Friday 'Stache

One day I might have to worry about putting random pictures of people I don't know on my blog, but today is not that day. So feast upon this fiery image while the season lasts.

















Dave Ackerman has a surprise for us this week (seriously, watch this one all the way through):



Quiet Dignity released a new video yesterday, which is primarily noteworthy only in terms of how many takes it took to get one in which the guys in it weren't laughing uncontrollably:



Lastly, Devin Graham released a new video recently that is simply sublime. I challenge anyone to disagree that the images here are infectiously pleasing:



I know. You'll miss 2190 for the next couple of days, but in your darkest moments, remember that on Monday there will be a fresh new post, ready and waiting just for you (plurally).

And because I love you (plurally), here's another little treat. You're (plurally) welcome.

The Interviews - Bree Evans

Bree Evans is a charming, thoughtful and well-spoken. She's also talented, energetic, and hard-working. In short, she's a great filmmaker, and an even better student of film.

Most recently, she's been producing one of the three senior capstones in BYU's Media Arts department, and she'll be the first to tell you it was a dramatically challenging project. As far as student films go (on shoestring budgets), Mr. Bellpond's Masterpiece is about as aggressively ambitious as they come, and everyone who's seen the footage so far has been glowingly positive about it. They're calling it gorgeous.

But that's just the latest. Bree's been intensely involved in filmmaking for years now, so she's got some significant things to say--particularly about the role of women in film. I hope you enjoy listening to her insights as much as I enjoyed extracting them.

Download this episode (right click and save)

WATCH MORE MOVIES

I made this. (with help)

It should be clear by now that I think movies are pretty important. I'll admit that my advocacy can be a bit rabid, but there's a reason for that.

Let's talk about the letter G. A 'G' in the MPAA rating system stands for "General Audiences." General audiences. That's an interesting phrase. I think it means "most of everybody."

I'm not interested in the 'G' rating, per se, but I am interested in the concept of a general audience, because it represents the status quo. The blockbuster crowd, if you will. These are the people, comprised of almost everyone, that determine the social value of cinema. I speak mainly of Western culture, and that for two reasons: 1) it's the one with which I am most familiar, and 2) it produces the vast majority of the world's most watched films.

I'm interested, deeply, uncomfortably and always, in the way movies are perceived by "general" audiences. What is the popular opinion? It's not the only opinion that matters, but it is certainly the one which will most heavily influence the shape of film to come. It is the one that drives the medium's economy. It dictates what gets made and seen by the greatest number of people.

And the popular opinion is that movies are, at their core, little more than diversion. They are the G audience's favorite pastime. They provide an escape from the harsh realities of life, and an alternative to the cold disappointments of mediocrity and tedium. If a movie isn't fun, it isn't worth it. If it doesn't make you feel good, it's bad.

Would anyone ever dare say such asinine things about music? Painting? Sculpture? Do people even say that about sports, which are themselves by definition a form of recreation, first and fundamentally?

But this is the G opinion. How it got there is a topic of discussion much to large to be tackled here, so instead I'll ask a simple question: Can it be changed?

I say yes. Not because I'm an optimist by nature, but because I believe that the relationship we have with film, as a general audience, is unsustainable. Michael Bay's explosions are experiencing diminishing returns. Ever bigger bangs draw increasingly smaller crowds.

But it's not something that will just fix itself. You're probably reading this blog because you feel the way I do. Movies are important. Film is an essential and wondrous language, and should be put to much better use by all of us. So I propose, for you and for me, a straight-forward challenge:

Watch better films, and watch them more than once. Watch them searchingly, actively, and talk about them more often and more deeply. Never let anyone get away with tossing off the false, destructive idea that movies aren't meant for more than a tub of popcorn.

The Friday 'Stache

Let's kick this Friday off with an announcement, in the form of a website: Dr. Fubalous.

This is a project that a few of my friends have been working on for, I believe, over a year now. They'll be shooting it all in July. Knowing the personalities and talents of the people behind this webseries, I predict unmitigated magnificence. You can (and certainly should) check out their Facebook page immediately as well.

Next up, a behind-the-scenes of the John Hendricks music video I posted last week:



That video is courtesy of a project called Urban Media, which is devoted to short documentaries about local urban culture (focused primarily on local musicians). The episodes are pretty high-quality, and the creator, Anthony Ambriz, has been very proactive and dedicated about the series. Regardless of whether you're interested in the subject matter, you should take a look at the content he's produced for an example of higher-caliber YouTube material.

A few days ago, I took a solid couple of hours to watch about a year's worth of Julian Smith's videos on his channel. It's likely you've heard of him, and it's even more likely you've seen his most famous episode, called "Malk." This is his most recent (pay close attention):



Notice that the concept behind this is very simple, and very straightforwardly executed. It's one shot, which means it took some thorough blocking and planning, and probably a number of takes. It's also as cheap as YouTube videos get. Given a decent camera and an as-is setting, they probably spent nothing on this video. And I think it's hilarious. Granted, this is exactly my kind of humor, and not everyone will dig it, but this is very much the kind of thing Quiet Dignity is trying to do, so it's encouraging to see this kind of idea executed so simply, expertly, and successfully.

That's it for this Friday's 'Stache. Once again, please share any thoughts you have in the comments below. What impressed you about what you saw? What didn't? And, most importantly, what have YOU found on YouTube (or anywhere else on the Webotron) that you really like and hope other people discover?

The Interviews - Austin Craig

I met Austin Craig quite randomly at a tiny house party that better resembled a blind double date than anything else. This was before he became famous as the Orabrush man (not to be confused with Morgan the Orabrush tongue). He was the first person I ever saw using a G1, and I immediately liked him. Mr. Craig smart and laid back. Friendly and intense. He comes across as a valuable person to know and talk to, and as you get to know and talk to him, you find out it's true.

Now, nearly three years later, his life seems to have been consumed by Orabrush, which, as you'll hear affirmed, isn't at all a bad thing. Probably he won't be in the tongue-cleaning business forever, but it's certainly gotten his name out. What's more, the enterprise has given him tons of invaluable experience in a radically expanding and vitally important medium: YouTube.

Fortunately, Austin was generous enough to let me pick his brain for ten minutes. As always, his insights are pointed, interesting, and extremely well articulated. I hope you enjoy hearing the interview as much as I enjoyed giving it.

And, for good measure, and because I promised it in the interview, here's one of my recent favorites from Orabrush: